-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 45.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Warn for keys in fragments - third approach #9445
Merged
flarnie
merged 6 commits into
facebook:master
from
flarnie:warnForKeysInFragmentsRefactorThirdApproach
Apr 19, 2017
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
2e3175d
Fix tests to pass when we warn for missing keys in fragments
flarnie 97adcf3
Added missing key warning for children in array fragments
flarnie 8248761
commit updated "scripts/rollup/results.json"
flarnie 1136b75
Make 'ReactChildren-test' more specific, and remove unneeded nesting
flarnie e03151a
Commit update of scripts/rollup/results.json
flarnie e890e80
run "scripts/fiber/record-tests"
flarnie File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why are there two here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's a good question. I can also fix this case by adding 'key' to each element in an array, but I think it's better to find the corner case where this change adds an extra warning, and decide if we want that extra warning. Looking into it now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So in this test we call
on line 33. With 'fiber' enabled, when 'updateWithChildren' is an array, it's treated as a fragment and the missing keys trigger a warning. This is a separate warning from the one for missing keys in the nested arrays wihin 'updateWithChildren'.
This seems like
A) A corner case
B) Possibly ok?
The only problem I can think of is that it is a change, so folks could have tests which passed before and then fail with Fiber, and that would be confusing.
I'm not sure how to detect the difference and stop the warning if it's a situation like this though.